Advertisement

Journal of Psycholinguistic Research

, Volume 47, Issue 3, pp 641–661 | Cite as

Perceptual Experience Norms for 506 Russian Nouns: Modality Rating, Spatial Localization, Manipulability, Imageability and Other Variables

  • Alex Miklashevsky
Article
  • 170 Downloads

Abstract

A number of new psycholinguistic variables has been proposed during the last years within embodied cognition framework: modality experience rating (i.e., relationship between words and images of a particular perceptive modality—visual, auditory, haptic etc.), manipulability (the necessity for an object to interact with human hands in order to perform its function), vertical spatial localization. However, it is not clear how these new variables are related to each other and to such traditional variables as imageability, AoA and word frequency. In this article, normative data on the modality (visual, auditory, haptic, olfactory, and gustatory) ratings, vertical spatial localization of the object, manipulability, imageability, age of acquisition, and subjective frequency for 506 Russian nouns are presented. Strongest correlations were observed between olfactory and gustatory modalities (.81), visual modality and imageability (.78), haptic modality and manipulability (.7). Other modalities also significantly correlate with imageability: olfactory (.35), gustatory (.24), and haptic (.67). Factor analysis divided variables into four groups where visual and haptic modality ratings were combined with imageability, manipulability and AoA (the first factor); word length, frequency and AoA formed the second factor; olfactory modality was united with gustatory (the third factor); spatial localization only is included in the fourth factor. Present norms of imageability and AoA are consistent with previous as correlation analysis has revealed. The complete database can be downloaded from supplementary material.

Keywords

Embodied cognition Modality rating Spatial localization Manipulability Imageability AoA Word frequency Russian Database 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was carried out in 2014–2016 with support from The Tomsk State University Academic D.I. Mendeleev Fund Program under Grant (No. 8.1.37.2015). The work on this article in 2017 was supported by the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation (the RF Government Grant No. 14.Y26.31.0014). The author thanks Zoya I. Rezanova and Armina Janyan for valuable discussion at all stages, from planning the study to working on the article, Valeria V. Kashpur for style editing, all the volunteers who helped to collect data and all the participants of the rating study.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The author declares that there is no conflict of interest.

Ethical standard

The study was approved by the Ethical Committee of the Laboratory for Cognitive Studies of Language (Tomsk State University). All the procedures were performed according to APA Ethical Standards.

Supplementary material

10936_2017_9548_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (108 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (xlsx 108 KB)

References

  1. ABBYY Lingvo online dictionary [electronic resource]: www.lingvo.ru.
  2. Akinina, Y. S., Grabovskaya, M. A., Vechkaeva A., Ignatjev G. A., Isaev, D. Y., Hanova A. F. (2016). Biblioteka psiholingvisticheskih stimulov: Novye dannye dlja russkogo i tatarskogo jazyka [Library of psycholinguistic stimuli: The new data for Russian and Tatarian languages]. In J. I. Aleksandrov, K. V. Anohin (Eds.), Sed’maja mezhdunarodnaja konferencija po kognitivnoj nauke: Tezisy dokladov. [Seventh international conference on cognitive science: Abstracts] (pp. 93-95). Svetlogorsk (in Russian).Google Scholar
  3. Akinina, Y. S., Iskra, E. V., Ivanova, M. V., Grabovskaya, M. A., Isaev, D. Y., Korkina, I., et al. (2014). Biblioteka stimulov Suschestvitel’noe I object: Normirovanie psikholingvisticheskikh parametrov [Stimuli database noun and object: Norming of psycholinguistic variables]. In B. Velichkovskiy, V. Rubtsov, & D. Ushakov (Eds.), Shestaya mezhdunarodnaya konferentsiya po kognitivnoy nauke: Tezisy dokladov. [Sixth international conference on cognitive science: Abstracts] (pp. 112–114). Kaliningrad (in Russian).Google Scholar
  4. Akinina, Y., Malyutina, S., Ivanova, M., Iskra, E., Mannova, E., & Dragoy, O. (2015). Russian normative data for 375 action pictures and verbs. Behavior Research Methods, 47(3), 691–707.  https://doi.org/10.3758/ s13428-014-0492-9.
  5. Allport, D. A., & Funnell, E. (1981). Components of the mental lexicon. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 295(1077), 397–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Balota, D. A. (1994). Visual word recognition: The journey from features to meaning. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 303–348). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  7. Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., Hutchison, K. A., Cortese, M. J., Kessler, B., Loftis, B., et al. (2007). The English lexicon project. Behavior Research Methods, 39(3), 445–459.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193014.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 22, 577–660.Google Scholar
  9. Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Barsalou, L. W., Simmons, W. K., Barbey, A. K., & Wilson, C. D. (2003). Grounding conceptual knowledge in modality-specific systems. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(2), 84–91.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(02)00029-3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Bergen, B. (2007). Experimental methods for simulation semantics. In M. Gonzalez-Marquez, I. Mittelberg, S. Coulson, & M. J. Spivey (Eds.), Methods in cognitive linguistics (pp. 277–301).Google Scholar
  12. Bird, H., Franklin, S., & Howard, D. (2001). Age of acquisition and imageability ratings for a large set of words, including verbs and function words. Behavior Research Methods, 33(1), 73–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Campanella, F., & Shallice, T. (2011). Manipulability and object recognition: Is manipulability a semantic feature? Experimental Brain Research, 208(3), 369–383.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-010-2489-7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Clark, J. M., & Paivio, A. (2004). Extensions of the Paivio, Yuille, and Madigan (1968) norms. Behavior Research Methods, 36(3), 371–383.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Coltheart, M., Rastle, K., Perry, C., Langdon, R., & Ziegler, J. (2001). DRC: A dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. Psychological Review, 108(1), 204.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.1.204.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Connell, L. (2007). Representing object colour in language comprehension. Cognition, 102(3), 476–485.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2006.02.009.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Connell, L., & Lynott, D. (2009). Is a bear white in the woods? Parallel representation of implied object color during language comprehension. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(3), 573–577.  https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.3.573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Connell, L., & Lynott, D. (2010). Look but don’t touch: Tactile disadvantage in processing modality-specific words. Cognition, 115(1), 1–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.10.005.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Connell, L., & Lynott, D. (2011). Modality switching costs emerge in concept creation as well as retrieval. Cognitive Science, 35(4), 763–778.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01168.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Connell, L., & Lynott, D. (2012). Strength of perceptual experience predicts word processing performance better than concreteness or imageability. Cognition, 125(3), 452–465.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.07.010.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Cortese, M. J., & Fugett, A. (2004). Imageability ratings for 3,000 monosyllabic words. Behavior Research Methods, 36(3), 384–387.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Davelaar, E., & Besner, D. (1988). Word identification: Imageability, semantics, and the content-functor distinction. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 40(4), 789–799.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14640748808402299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. De Saussure, F., & Baskin, W. (2011). Course in general linguistics [1916]. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Della Rosa, P. A., Catricalà, E., Vigliocco, G., & Cappa, S. F. (2010). Beyond the abstract-concrete dichotomy: Mode of acquisition, concreteness, imageability, familiarity, age of acquisition, context availability, and abstractness norms for a set of 417 Italian words. Behavior Research Methods, 42(4), 1042–1048.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.4.1042.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Dragoy, O., Chrabaszcz, A., Tolkacheva, V., & Buklina, S. (2016). Russian Intraoperative Naming Test: A Standardized Tool to Map Noun and Verb Production during Awake Neurosurgeries. The Russian Journal of Cognitive Science, 3(4), 4–25.Google Scholar
  26. Dudschig, C., Lachmair, M., de la Vega, I., De Filippis, M., & Kaup, B. (2012). From top to bottom: Spatial shifts of attention caused by linguistic stimuli. Cognitive Processing, 13(1), 151–154.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-012-0480-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dudschig, C., Souman, J., Lachmair, M., de la Vega, I., & Kaup, B. (2013). Reading sun and looking up: The influence of language on saccadic eye movements in the vertical dimension. PloS One, 8(2), e56872.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0056872.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Ernst, M. O., & Banks, M. S. (2002). Humans integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal fashion. Nature, 415(6870), 429–433.  https://doi.org/10.1038/415429a.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Estes, Z., Verges, M., & Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Head up, foot down object words orient attention to the objects’ typical location. Psychological Science, 19(2), 93–97.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02051.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Filliter, J. H., McMullen, P. A., & Westwood, D. (2005). Manipulability and living/non-living category effects on object identification. Brain and Cognition, 57(1), 61–65.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2004.08.022.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Fischer, M. H., & Zwaan, R. A. (2008). Embodied language: A review of the role of the motor system in language comprehension. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61(6), 825–850.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210701623605.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Franklin, S., Howard, D., & Patterson, K. (1994). Abstract word meaning deafness. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 11(1), 1–34.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02643299408251964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Grigoriev, A., & Oshhepkov, I. (2013). Objective age of acquisition norms for a set of 286 words in Russian: Relationships with other psycholinguistic variables. Behavior Research Methods, 45(4), 1208–1217.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0319-0.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Hanley, J. R., & Kay, J. (1997). An effect of imageability on the production of phonological errors in auditory repetition. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 14(8), 1065–1084.  https://doi.org/10.1080/026432997381277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hauk, O., & Pulvermüller, F. (2004). Effects of word length and frequency on the human event-related potential. Clinical Neurophysiology, 115(5), 1090–1103.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2003.12.020.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Imai, M., Kita, S., Nagumo, M., & Okada, H. (2008). Sound symbolism facilitates early verb learning. Cognition, 109(1), 54–65.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.07.015.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. James, C. T. (1975). The role of semantic information in lexical decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1(2), 130–136.Google Scholar
  38. Janyan, A., & Andonova, E. (2008). Presentation modality in age of acquisition rating reflects mode of acquired knowledge: Evidence from category-specific effects. In Proceedings of the 30th annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 1841–1846).Google Scholar
  39. Janyan, A., Vankov, I., Tsaregorodtseva, O., & Miklashevsky, A. (2015). Remember down, look down, read up: Does a word modulate eye trajectory away from remembered location? Cognitive Processing, 16(1), 259–263.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-015-0718-5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Juhasz, B. J. (2005). Age-of-acquisition effects in word and picture identification. Psychological Bulletin, 131(5), 684.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.131.5.684.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Keuleers, E., & Balota, D. A. (2015). Megastudies, crowdsourcing, and large datasets in psycholinguistics: An overview of recent developments. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68(8), 1457–1468.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1051065.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Kiefer, M., & Pulvermüller, F. (2012). Conceptual representations in mind and brain: Theoretical developments, current evidence and future directions. Cortex, 48(7), 805–825.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2011.04.006.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Kolbeneva, M. G., & Aleksandrov, Y. I. (2010). Organyi chuvstv, emotsii i prilagatelnyie russkogo yazyika. Lingvo-psihologicheskiy slovar. [Senses, emotions and Russian adjectives]. Moscow.Google Scholar
  44. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2003). Metaphors we live by 1980. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lee, H. B., & Comrey, A. L. (1992). A first course in factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  46. Ljashevskaja, O. N., & Sharov, S. A. (2009). Chastotnyjj slovar’ sovremennogo russkogo jazyka na materialakh Nacional’nogo korpusa russkogo jazyka [Frequency dictionary of Russian language based on Russian National Corpus]. Moscow.Google Scholar
  47. Lynott, D., & Connell, L. (2009). Modality exclusivity norms for 423 object properties. Behavior Research Methods, 41(2), 558–564.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.2.558.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Lynott, D., & Connell, L. (2013). Modality exclusivity norms for 400 nouns: The relationship between perceptual experience and surface word form. Behavior Research Methods, 45(2), 516–526.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0267-0.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Meteyard, L., Cuadrado, S. R., Bahrami, B., & Vigliocco, G. (2012). Coming of age: A review of embodiment and the neuroscience of semantics. Cortex, 48(7), 788–804.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2010.11.002.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Miklashevsky, A. A. (2017). About the high and the low: Spatial semantics of abstract and concrete nouns. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 424, 26–34.  https://doi.org/10.17223/15617793/424/4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Moreno-Martínez, F. J., Montoro, P. R., & Rodríguez-Rojo, I. C. (2014). Spanish norms for age of acquisition, concept familiarity, lexical frequency, manipulability, typicality, and other variables for 820 words from 14 living/nonliving concepts. Behavior Research Methods, 46(4), 1088–1097.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0435-x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Nishimoto, T., Ueda, T., Miyawaki, K., Une, Y., & Takahashi, M. (2012). The role of imagery-related properties in picture naming: A newly standardized set of 360 pictures for Japanese. Behavior Research Methods, 44(4), 934–945.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0176-7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Nygaard, L. C., Cook, A. E., & Namy, L. L. (2009). Sound to meaning correspondences facilitate word learning. Cognition, 112(1), 181–186.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.04.001.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Paivio, A., Yuille, J. C., & Madigan, S. A. (1968). Concreteness, imagery, and meaningfulness values for 925 nouns. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 76(1p2), 1.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Pecher, D., Zeelenberg, R., & Barsalou, L. W. (2003). Verifying different-modality properties for concepts produces switching costs. Psychological Science, 14(2), 119–124.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.t01-1-01429.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Pecher, D., Zeelenberg, R., & Barsalou, L. W. (2004). Sensorimotor simulations underlie conceptual representations: Modality-specific effects of prior activation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11(1), 164–167.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Perniss, P., Thompson, R., & Vigliocco, G. (2010). Iconicity as a general property of language: Evidence from spoken and signed languages. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, 227.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00227.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  58. Pulvermüller, F. (2012). Meaning and the brain: The neurosemantics of referential, interactive, and combinatorial knowledge. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 25(5), 423–459.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2011.03.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Pulvermüller, F. (2013). How neurons make meaning: Brain mechanisms for embodied and abstract-symbolic semantics. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(9), 458–470.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.06.004.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. R Core Team. (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/.
  61. Rezanova, Z. I., & Miklashevsky, A. A. (2016). Modelirovanie obrazno-pertseptivnogo komponenta yazyikovoy semantiki pri pomoschi psiholingvisticheskoy bazyi dannyih [Modeling of the perceptual-based component of language semantics using a psycholinguistic database]. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Filologiya – Tomsk State University Journal of Philology, 5(43), 71–92.  https://doi.org/10.17223/19986645/43/6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Rubin, D. C. (1980). 51 properties of 125 words: A unit analysis of verbal behavior. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19(6), 736–755.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(80)90415-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Salmon, J. P., McMullen, P. A., & Filliter, J. H. (2010). Norms for two types of manipulability (graspability and functional usage), familiarity, and age of acquisition for 320 photographs of objects. Behavior Research Methods, 42(1), 82–95.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.1.82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Schock, J., Cortese, M. J., & Khanna, M. M. (2012). Imageability estimates for 3,000 disyllabic words. Behavior Research Methods, 44(2), 374–379.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0162-0.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Simonsen, H. G., Lind, M., Hansen, P., Holm, E., & Mevik, B. H. (2013). Imageability of Norwegian nouns, verbs and adjectives in a cross-linguistic perspective. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 27(6–7), 435–446.  https://doi.org/10.3109/02699206.2012.752527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Strain, E., & Herdman, C. M. (1999). Imageability effects in word naming: An individual differences analysis. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale, 53(4), 347.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0087322.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Strain, E., Patterson, K., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2002). Theories of word naming interact with spelling-sound consistency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28(1), 207–214.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.28.1.207.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using Multivariate Statistics. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  69. Tsaparina, D., Bonin, P., & Méot, A. (2011). Russian norms for name agreement, image agreement for the colorized version of the Snodgrass and Vanderwart pictures and age of acquisition, conceptual familiarity, and imageability scores for modal object names. Behavior Research Methods, 43(4), 1085–1099.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0121-9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Tsaregorodtseva, O. V., & Miklashevsky, A. A. (2015). Different languages, same sun, and same grass: Do linguistic stimuli influence attention shifts in Russian? Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 215, 279–286.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Vlasova, R. M. (2016). A normative set of object-action pictures. The Russian Journal of Cognitive Science, 3(1–2), 53.Google Scholar
  72. Whorf, B. L., & Chase, S. (1956). Language, thought and reality, selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Edited... by John B. Carroll. Foreword by Stuart Chase. J. B. Carroll (Ed.). Mass.Google Scholar
  73. Willems, R. M., & Casasanto, D. (2011). Flexibility in embodied language understanding. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 116.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00116.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  74. Winter, B., Matlock, T., Shaki, S., & Fischer, M. H. (2015). Mental number space in three dimensions. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 57, 209–219.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2015.09.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Witten, I. B., & Knudsen, E. I. (2005). Why seeing is believing: Merging auditory and visual worlds. Neuron, 48(3), 489–496.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2005.10.020.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Zevin, J. D., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2002). Age of acquisition effects in word reading and other tasks. Journal of Memory and language, 47(1), 1–29.  https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2001.2834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Potsdam Embodied Cognition Group, Cognitive SciencesUniversity of PotsdamPotsdamGermany
  2. 2.Laboratory for Cognitive Studies of LanguageNational Research Tomsk State UniversityTomskRussia

Personalised recommendations